I don't think creationism Should be taught in schools. Nor do i think the big bang should be taught in schools. i don't think matters of faith should be put on par with information that can be taught as an absolute truth. i think that all information that we currently hold to be true should be taught as a conengent variable. That we should seperate the sciences and we should seperate even the various -ologies up into absolutes and contengent variable learning.

I think to do so from one position to another is a way of controling what people think. how they view the world. it's how a given soceity controls the population.

Again I think only absolutes should be taught, and the rest be presented with a grain of salt.

(19-02-2014 12:53 AM)DLJ Wrote: ...
How about "teaching about creation in schools"?

But since you've changed it (evolved it) into something slightly different, I will follow your lead and I'll keep it brief.

So let's break it down.
Part 1: In Schools
Part 2: Taught
Part 3: Creationism
(I'm guessing that the words "Should" and "be" are implied.)

Part 1: In Schools
Regarding schools, and you may regard this as academic but the schools of the future will be somewhat different to those of today.

This is from a joint release from our Infocomm Development Authority and Ministry of Education:
"By harnessing infocomm technology in the education sector through innovative pedagogies and flexible learning environments, schools will be able to achieve higher levels of engagement of their pupils who already have an Infocomm-integrated lifestyle. Thus, pupils will be equipped with the essential skills to be effective workers and citizens in the globalised, digital workplace of the future."

What this means is that fixed location schools will over time be replaced by virtual schools. This means that "in schools" will become an antiquated term.

There is a difference between Private vs. Public schools (I'm using the more literal US (rather than UK) definitions of these terms) with regard to their Service Models.

The above quote obviously relates to Public schools because the Customer in this model is Society. In a Private school model, the Parent is the Customer.

For the Private model, there are two options: dedicated and shared. In other words, respectively, home-schooling and Local Community schooling.

For Private (dedicated), the Parent (the customer) will have full autonomy and the extent to which wider social groups can and should influence the private curriculum is open for debate.

For Private (shared), some resources e.g. the virtual teacher, the physical accommodation (and I quite like the idea of students sitting outside in the sun, under the shade of a giant oak, watching a large screen), technology infrastructure and apps and supervisory staff / facilitators will be funded by the parents as a local collective. The decisions regarding syllabus will be for them to negotiate and agree.
Again, as the wider societies (state, businesses, military etc.) are also stakeholders, there must be a mechanism for including the needs of these stakeholders in the decision-making process.

So we have three models:

Private (dedicated)

Private (shared)

Public (shared)

In fact we have 4. But if I started talking about the Public (dedicated) model e.g. a monastery or seminary, this post would get too long.

Type 1 gives parents full control but also restricts their flexibility and earning capability.
Type 2 allows for local control, shared costs and risks and frees up parent's time thus increasing their earning and leisure potential.
Type 3 hands all control over to the funding bodies (church, state or other) but these bodies have greater access to wider and specialist knowledge and resources.

Part 2: Taught
Teaching methods are going to change dramatically over the next few decades. In fact they already are changing.
Interestingly, the ancient Greeks hit on it first with their use of tablets, although we have a slightly more interactive model now.

We already have the 'YouTube' model, where the world's best educators can create content modules accessible on demand.
Emerging in the education sector with which I am involved, is the instructor-led model where at a set time, all students join the lecture/collaborative sessions.
These models can work for all school-types.

Part 3: Creationism
For Type 1, I (or anyone other than the parents) will have no say in the curriculum. So there is no point discussing it.

I see no reason why creation stories and other folklore should be excluded from all three models (Types 1, 2 and 3) and Creationism (as a movement) is also something of which people need to be aware.

They form a basis for the wider subjects of Civics, History, Art and Literature.

In Information Modelling, we shy away from the word "fact". There are data, information, knowledge and wisdom.

This all implies that it is beneficial to provide Information (not knowledge) regarding folklore and creation myths and Creationism at early stages of childhood development and added experience, context, interpretation and reflection later turns that Information into Knowledge.

Current (and historical) scientific models should obviously be taught with the most up-to-date Theories being explained as just that... the most up-to-date currently accepted Theories.

As an aside... spelling, or at the very least, 'how to use a spell-checker' should remain on the curriculum because the ability to communicate (successfully code and decode) is a fundamental tool of all society-types.

(19-02-2014 12:53 AM)DLJ Wrote: ...
How about "teaching about creation in schools"?

But since you've changed it (evolved it) into something slightly different, I will follow your lead and I'll keep it brief.

So let's break it down.
Part 1: In Schools
Part 2: Taught
Part 3: Creationism
(I'm guessing that the words "Should" and "be" are implied.)

Part 1: In Schools
Regarding schools, and you may regard this as academic but the schools of the future will be somewhat different to those of today.

This is from a joint release from our Infocomm Development Authority and Ministry of Education:
"By harnessing infocomm technology in the education sector through innovative pedagogies and flexible learning environments, schools will be able to achieve higher levels of engagement of their pupils who already have an Infocomm-integrated lifestyle. Thus, pupils will be equipped with the essential skills to be effective workers and citizens in the globalised, digital workplace of the future."

What this means is that fixed location schools will over time be replaced by virtual schools. This means that "in schools" will become an antiquated term.

There is a difference between Private vs. Public schools (I'm using the more literal US (rather than UK) definitions of these terms) with regard to their Service Models.

The above quote obviously relates to Public schools because the Customer in this model is Society. In a Private school model, the Parent is the Customer.

For the Private model, there are two options: dedicated and shared. In other words, respectively, home-schooling and Local Community schooling.

For Private (dedicated), the Parent (the customer) will have full autonomy and the extent to which wider social groups can and should influence the private curriculum is open for debate.

For Private (shared), some resources e.g. the virtual teacher, the physical accommodation (and I quite like the idea of students sitting outside in the sun, under the shade of a giant oak, watching a large screen), technology infrastructure and apps and supervisory staff / facilitators will be funded by the parents as a local collective. The decisions regarding syllabus will be for them to negotiate and agree.
Again, as the wider societies (state, businesses, military etc.) are also stakeholders, there must be a mechanism for including the needs of these stakeholders in the decision-making process.

So we have three models:

Private (dedicated)

Private (shared)

Public (shared)

In fact we have 4. But if I started talking about the Public (dedicated) model e.g. a monastery or seminary, this post would get too long.

Type 1 gives parents full control but also restricts their flexibility and earning capability.
Type 2 allows for local control, shared costs and risks and frees up parent's time thus increasing their earning and leisure potential.
Type 3 hands all control over to the funding bodies (church, state or other) but these bodies have greater access to wider and specialist knowledge and resources.

Part 2: Taught
Teaching methods are going to change dramatically over the next few decades. In fact they already are changing.
Interestingly, the ancient Greeks hit on it first with their use of tablets, although we have a slightly more interactive model now.

We already have the 'YouTube' model, where the world's best educators can create content modules accessible on demand.
Emerging in the education sector with which I am involved, is the instructor-led model where at a set time, all students join the lecture/collaborative sessions.
These models can work for all school-types.

Part 3: Creationism
For Type 1, I (or anyone other than the parents) will have no say in the curriculum. So there is no point discussing it.

I see no reason why creation stories and other folklore should be excluded from all three models (Types 1, 2 and 3) and Creationism (as a movement) is also something of which people need to be aware.

They form a basis for the wider subjects of Civics, History, Art and Literature.

In Information Modelling, we shy away from the word "fact". There are data, information, knowledge and wisdom.

This all implies that it is beneficial to provide Information (not knowledge) regarding folklore and creation myths and Creationism at early stages of childhood development and added experience, context, interpretation and reflection later turns that Information into Knowledge.

Current (and historical) scientific models should obviously be taught with the most up-to-date Theories being explained as just that... the most up-to-date currently accepted Theories.

As an aside... spelling, or at the very least, 'how to use a spell-checker' should remain on the curriculum because the ability to communicate (successfully code and decode) is a fundamental tool of all society-types.

Cheers

That was great... But so what.. How does any of this differ from what I said?

Thank you for that terse but well thought through and articulate rebuttal.

If I have understood your question correctly, you are drawing a conclusion that both our position are aligned.

Firstly, I would like to say that I agree completely with the first three words and secondly I have learned by your "so what?" that perhaps you think that what I have stated as my position is somehow irrelevant.

If I may be so bold as to answer your question directly:
You say "How does any of this differ from what I said?"

What you said was "I don't think creationism [s]hould be taught in schools."
I say, given my proviso vis-à-vis the types of schools we might be considering, that it should.

(21-02-2014 10:04 AM)DLJ Wrote: Thank you for that terse but well thought through and articulate rebuttal.

If I have understood your question correctly, you are drawing a conclusion that both our position are aligned.

Firstly, I would like to say that I agree completely with the first three words and secondly I have learned by your "so what?" that perhaps you think that what I have stated as my position is somehow irrelevant.

If I may be so bold as to answer your question directly:
You say "How does any of this differ from what I said?"

What you said was "I don't think creationism [s]hould be taught in schools."
I say, given my proviso vis-à-vis the types of schools we might be considering, that it should.

I would tend to agree, with your part 3 if all of the non absolute scientific theories/discoveries were treated in the same vain. However I do not think this would ever happen, so i hold to my orginal thoughts. that all non belief/faith based material not be taught in our schools. to subject a impressionable mind to faith/theory based information and hold it to the same regaurd as a scientific absolute is a form of mind control. It's true in the church, which means it is also true outside the church. The only thing that differs is the content of the material. the methodology remains the same.

Just to clarify to make sure I have it right (I'm a little confused by your unusual syntax):
I think you are saying that there is such a thing as an 'absolute' scientific theory / discovery.
And that only these 'absolutes' should be taught in, presumably Public, schools.

We agree regarding 'impressionable' minds... they do exist.

When you say that "non belief/faith based material not be taught in our schools" this seems to go against your original position; once the double negative is removed, you are saying that faith-based material must be taught in schools. Please confirm.

But it is interesting to discover, when you say "faith/theory based information" that you consider the two (faith and theory) on a par.

Perhaps you could clarify for me, the following by giving examples:

A scientific absolute

Faith

Belief

Theory

Thank you.

It seems to be reasonable, to me, that:

facts are taught as facts e.g. the earth rotates on an axis;

theories are taught as theories e.g. gravity;

folklore is taught as folklore e.g. trolls and leprechauns.

The teaching methodology will change as our understanding of the way the brain absorbs information and converts it to knowledge and our technology-enabled delivery mechanisms evolve.